JYOTHI HOME INDUSTRIES Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Writ Appeals are preferred against the Order dated

(2.) 1.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.25471 and 25472 of 1990 and other Writ Petitions. Except Writ Appeal Nos.681 and 682 of 1993, which are preferred by the respondents in the Writ Petitions all other Writ Appeals are preferred by the petitioners in the Writ petitions. Hence all the Writ Appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. In the Writ Petitions, the petitioners sought for a declaration that Para 26(1) (a) of the Employees' Provident Funds* Scheme 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') as amended by the Notification No.S-35012/90-SS.II dated 19.10.1990 is ultra vires being beyond the scope of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioners challenged the aforesaid Notification dated 19.10.1990 on another ground viz., that it was not placed before the Parliament as required by Section 7(2) of the Act. However it was noticed by the learned Single Judge in para 6 of his Order that the Notification had, in fact, been placed before the Parliament on 7.1.1991 and 8.1.1991 in terms of Section 7(2) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has observed that the above contention need not be considered. Before us, such a contention was not urged having regard to the fact that the impugned Notification dated 19.10.1992 was placed before the Parliament.

(3.) The learned Single Judge has held that the Notification dated 19.10.1990 which modified Para 26(1) of the Scheme has to be read in the light of the Decision of the Supreme Court in THE PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR, GUNTUR vs T.S. HARIHARAN1. The learned Single Judge has specifically held thus: